Is this wrong/illegal/discrimination

[TheBeardedOne]

So the business i work for just signed a few new contracts which would allow us to expand. Now we are in the process of hiring some new employees and in a meeting we were discussing what we would be looking for. One of the things that came was we didn't want to hire anyone that currently has children or planing to have them(both male and female). We want this because the parents that work are constantly having to leave early to do stuff for their kids and generally think they have the right too. We feel in the management they do not pull their weight at all compared to the single/childless employees.

So is this wrong/unethical/discrimination practise to not hire parents, because as far are we are concerned for that 8 hours a day while you are at work you should be working, not doing stuff for your children or ducking out to pick them up, and we deny and reprimand them for doing it they normally go off on a ramble of the modern stresses parenting which we are quite frankly sick of.

[Catta]

You discriminate heavily when you hire people. You want the best. Is it unethical? Maybe. But a business is a business and maybe it cant turn a profit if they have to hire replacements all the time to fill in.

[Symphonic]

I would imagine it is unethical. It might be a form of discrimination only in the sense that you would basically have to ask them if they have kids or are planning to have them, and then, even though they may be higher qualified than the person who isn't even married, are told they were not picked.

I will say that I have a baby who is 6 months old. I have taken zero days off of work after my 5 days of "paternal" leave. I don't know about you, but as a parent I want to work harder and be more reliable so that I can provide better for my family.

[Deleted]

1. Yes I do believe it is discrimination for refusing to hire parents
2. They shouldn't really be leaving work early for any reason other than an emergency, if its to do with picking up their kids they should organise for someone else to pick them up and take care of them, even if their child is sick they should generally have another emergency contact who might be able to pick them up and take care of them in their place, only when the other person can't do so or their child has been in an accident or something along those lines would I, personally, allow them to leave work without some form of punishment for doing so

[TheBeardedOne]

1. Yes I do believe it is discrimination for refusing to hire parents
2. They shouldn't really be leaving work early for any reason other than an emergency, if its to do with picking up their kids they should organise for someone else to pick them up and take care of them, even if their child is sick they should generally have another emergency contact who might be able to pick them up and take care of them in their place, only when the other person can't do so or their child has been in an accident or something along those lines would I, personally, allow them to leave work without some form of punishment for doing so

yes but with childless workers this isn't a problem

[Symphonic]

yes but with childless workers this isn't a problem

Let me repeat. I am a parent. I work harder knowing that I have a child and a wife that need my support. Don't you want people in your company who have a great reason to work?

Furthermore, do you plan on giving your employees vacation days? As far as I'm aware, it's a standard procedure to give around 4 hours every pay period of paid time off. If you do, what would be wrong if your employees never take a day off... unless they use a paid day that you give them to do whatever they want. Only if it involves children you somehow are under the assumption that this is bad.

[TheBeardedOne]

Let me repeat. I am a parent. I work harder knowing that I have a child and a wife that need my support. Don't you want people in your company who have a great reason to work?

Furthermore, do you plan on giving your employees vacation days? As far as I'm aware, it's a standard procedure to give around 4 hours every pay period of paid time off. If you do, what would be wrong if your employees never take a day off... unless they use a paid day that you give them to do whatever they want. Only if it involves children you somehow are under the assumption that this is bad.

yes but not all parents are like you, and in this business a team environmental is crucial, having them work days when the rest of their team is on a roster-ed day off is pointless

[Masark]

So the business i work for just signed a few new contracts which would allow us to expand. Now we are in the process of hiring some new employees and in a meeting we were discussing what we would be looking for. One of the things that came was we didn't want to hire anyone that currently has children or planing to have them(both male and female). We want this because the parents that work are constantly having to leave early to do stuff for their kids and generally think they have the right too. We feel in the management they do not pull their weight at all compared to the single/childless employees.

So is this wrong/unethical/discrimination practise to not hire parents, because as far are we are concerned for that 8 hours a day while you are at work you should be working, not doing stuff for your children or ducking out to pick them up, and we deny and reprimand them for doing it they normally go off on a ramble of the modern stresses parenting which we are quite frankly sick of.

Asking "is this illegal" without specifying country/state/province is not going to get you anywhere.

In Saskatchewan (and in every province, I think), even asking about marital or familial status (among other subjects) during a job interview or application is illegal.

[DEATHETERNAL]

It is not wrong and likely isn’t illegal. It is discrimination but when you’re hiring employees, discrimination is the best policy. Hire only the people that you think will produce the most for you based on all available information and statistics. To do otherwise in such a poor market would be foolishness.

[Deleted]

would depend one what country you're from i think. i think its probably illegal in some, and unethical in every country. but i can see the reasons for doing it.

[Deleted]

From a company's point of view, i can understand perfectly why they would prefer childless workers. But from a society's point of view, that's discouraging child-bearing at a moment when the birth rate is low. Also, preferential childless employment often favors immigrants, as most immigrants come without familiar loads, which might make the society that sustains your company a bit uncomfortable.

So in the end, it's not surprising when a society ends up deciding to outlaw such practices.

[Sunseeker]

Generally speaking, the parents I work with work much harder than the people without. The parents I work with do fewer stupid things than the non-parents I work with.

If a person is slacking or skipping work for any reason, they should be punished for that. But if it's about work ethic I rarely see non-parents work harder than parents.

In some US states, it is illegal to inquire about martial and family statuses. If you do so, and don't hire them, they have legal ground to argue that your inquiry lead to them not being hired, and since the inquiry was illegal, they'd be in their right.

[Redblade]

I think you would find that in most countries it would be considered discrimination if you asked them if they have kids and used that information to base your decission to not hire them, hard to prove but if it could be that's how the law would look in most places as far as I'm aware.

Personally I think you should be allowed to hire whom ever you want based on what ever criteria you feel like, if you want only black single gay guys with no kids working for you there really shouldn't be a reason why you couldn't hire based on that criteria. If the government want to enforce some type of equality principles they have more than enough positions them selfs to do so with.

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

Seems fine to me.

Having a kid doesn't mean you suddenly have special privileges in the workplace. If people don't get that, then there's better candidates for the job.

[Balazaar]

Symphonic ... 4 hours leave per pay period? You sure don't live in the United States. I've had jobs it took 10 years of service to get 3 weeks vacation. 5 years to get 2 weeks.

[Deleted]

Business is about efficiency. There's nothing wrong with this.

[Nero Duskwind]

I think you would find that in most countries it would be considered discrimination if you asked them if they have kids and used that information to base your decission to not hire them, hard to prove but if it could be that's how the law would look in most places as far as I'm aware.

AS far as the USA goes, I'll just leave this here:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/i...tal_status.cfm

[Ayla]

Asking "is this illegal" without specifying country/state/province is not going to get you anywhere.

In Saskatchewan (and in every province, I think), even asking about marital or familial status (among other subjects) during a job interview or application is illegal.

I have no idea why this is an illegal question. It doesnt matter anyways, if they want to figure it out they will. "Let me walk you to your car" essentially translates into "I want to see if you have a baby seat in your car". Just making things like this "illegal" is just one further loophole people have to jump through, or lie about. Don't want to hire a deaf person? Make sure you find a different reason to not hire them.

Making things "Illegal" and having people discriminte against you regadless makes me want to cry. The government should just add extra benefits to hiring people with children/the disabled.

[Redblade]

The government should just add extra benefits to hiring people with children/the disabled.

That is equally fucked up, provide daycare or other assistance, sure. Give employers incentives to hire parents, hell no.

[Sunshine]

I have no idea why this is an illegal question. It doesnt matter anyways, if they want to figure it out they will. "Let me walk you to your car" essentially translates into "I want to see if you have a baby seat in your car". Just making things like this "illegal" is just one further loophole people have to jump through, or lie about. Don't want to hire a deaf person? Make sure you find a different reason to not hire them.

In California it's also illegal to ask anything about how they got to the interview (car, public transport), along with a whole list of other questions (see http://www.esrcheck.com/services/leg..._questions.php for more).


In any case, it's illegal to discriminate by number / possibility of children in many places, and I personally think it's pretty unethical -- judge someone based on how they they actually act, not what you assume they might act.